It's anybody's guess what the presidential primary picture will look like after this week's “Super Tuesday” vote, with almost half of the states holding primaries. There's plenty of debate over whether the results will produce clear enough front runners to make the remaining primary votes effectively moot.

For the sake of people voting in those remaining states, we hope not. The way the major parties choose their presidential candidates, however, almost ensures that the voice of at least a few states every year will be meaningless.

We don't pretend to have a perfect system in mind, but we believe the current system - even with its changes this election cycle - is fundamentally flawed.

Take, for example, the time-honored tradition of single states like Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina having exclusively early votes.

This process brings all of the candidates' attention to those states only. Any candidate who ignores those places with the idea that they can focus on the more populated areas later on takes considerable risk - just ask Rudy Giuliani.

This week's Super Tuesday vote is also flawed. Even though the bulk of the electoral delegates are up for grabs on this one day, the candidates will have spent considerably little time campaigning in the voting states because they had been doing all of their work in those early states.

It's quite possible this week's election will determine who runs for president in the fall, but we worry how informed that determination will be.

Yes, there's been plenty of mass media coverage of this race, so Tuesday's voters certainly have access to information about the candidates. But the truth is people pay more attention to campaigns when they come to their own states.

Perhaps a national primary is the answer. Maybe its a series of regional primaries.

But there needs to be a better way to get more of the nation involved in this vital process.